British (?) Trix

[St Enodoc]

30 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

If you've ever been to Spondon, outside Derby, you may have noticed the smell of vinegar/acetic acid given off by the former Courtaulds acetate plant adjoining the railway at Spondon.

Tinned tomatoes. That was always my cue to get ready to alight at Derby!

[Philou]

On 31/10/2021 at 10:40, GoingUnderground said:

but only one UK one which was a searchlight single lens type, but it did come with colour filters so the buyer could choose between Home and Distant

 

Just caught up with this topic. The Trix searchlight signal must have gone through various iterations as the one I have has a base with two bulbs within it, but it's the bulbs themselves that are coloured with the light being transmitted to the head via a light tube.

 

All in all, I found that the Trix stuff was quite well made despite scale differences, as the signal could be operated by a switch that could be linked via a bar to another one that operated a isolating section. The switches were of metal. The isolation section switch had a bulb in it (quite a big one if I recall) that would draw current through it and the train would come to a gradual stop rather than a dead stop (I'm not sure how it worked but it did). You had to be careful with the H/D 2-6-4T as it was so free running that the momentum (flywheel effect) of the motor would take it through the isolating section if at too high a speed on approach.

 

I regret not having those switches now (still about somewhere but not here).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited November 12, 2021 by Philou
Phat Phingers

[Il Grifone]

All the Trix semaphore signals I had/have used coloured sleeves over the bulbs (a standard Trix spare 12V @ 75mA).

The isolating check switch had a larger bulb inside. Normally (green light) this was shorted out to feed the section. Moving the levers to red put it in series with the section and hence the locomotive motor. As the train entered the section the bulb illuminated - initially low resistance (cold) increasing as it came on to stop the train. (Trix brushes should be set so that the locomotive will not start until the traction voltage exceeds six volts.) I think Dublo locomotives would draw less current as their permanent magnets would not require power from the supply.

[railroadbill]

On 11/11/2021 at 22:47, andyman7 said:

I remember back in the 1970s getting Lego spares and accessories supplied from the Wrexham plant. There are references in the Matthewman book to items being moulded by Lego, e.g. P211 regarding the A2 body tool being made by Universal Tools Ltd of Mitcham with bodies moulded at the British Lego factory; P190 regarding the E3001 tool being purchased by British Trix from Liliput of Austria and the body now being moulded at the Lego factory in Wrexham. 

 

The mention of British Celanese reminds me of all those Decca record sleeves with the note on the reverse that stated it was 'laminated with 'Clarifoil' made by British Celanese Ltd'. 

 

Having looked it up, it seems that when the acetate plant at Spondon was demolished, (2014) some track used at the plant was recovered by the Ecclesbourne Valley railway.  Also in 1916 when the forerunner to British Celanese was set up, the main product was cellulose dope for finishing the covering on aircraft wings.

[sagaguy]

On 12/11/2021 at 13:51, Il Grifone said:

All the Trix semaphore signals I had/have used coloured sleeves over the bulbs (a standard Trix spare 12V @ 75mA).

 

I think you mean the Trix colour light signals.The sleeves over the years disintegrate and i managed to get a quantity of 12v red,green and yellow lilliput LEDs.Unfortunately,these are not available anymore,they are now prefocused and don`t shine up the post.

 

                         ray.

[sagaguy]

I also used a white LED on a piece of PCB for the semaphore signal which had lost its base.

 

                 Ray.

[Il Grifone]

 Yes I did mean colour lights!

Having a few sans base, I thought to replace them with LEDs. However the ones I have in stock are too dim. I'll have to try again with some modern Hi-Bri ones. Another order from China, which will take months (if it arrives at all!).

[railroadbill]

One thing about Trix (at least the older 3 rail system) that comes over is that they pushed operating features as a selling point. The isolating switch with bulb that slowed the train to a halt, running 2 trains on one track, then 3 with catenary, the gravel conveyor belt loader, (I remember that one) had plenty of operating value. On the other hand the 0-4-0 locos were seminscale with very coarse wheels. By the time the britannia/std 5 era came along, they still had the compromise scale. The colour light signals look sophisticated for their day.

One operating feature that's intriguing is the remote uncoupling mechanism (which apparently was noisy).  Other makes had (have) uncoupling ramps and so on, but being able to have a loco uncouple anywhere by remote control didn't catch on. Even now with DCC it doesn't seem to be available on an r-t-r loco (at least in UK).

[Ruffnut Thorston]

There are kits to fit a DCC function operated automatic uncoupling tension lock, for non-tender drive tenders… Keen Systems advertise one in the magazines.

 

But nothing that I can think of RTR…

[railroadbill]

Yup, should be straight forward enough to fit some kind of servo or solenoid device controlled from a function output on the chip. Plenty of functions on sound chips for instance, and things like flickering firebox lights are becoming popular, but not uncoupling (as a ready fitted feature, as Trix did long ago).

 

On reflection, it would work ok in a tender with reasonable room, a diesel might not have enough space perhaps.

Edited November 18, 2021 by railroadbill

[Il Grifone]

The Trix uncoupler relied on a electromagnet (hence the noise) operated with the reverser and was only fitted to the 'Scotsman' in the UK (post war - pre-war it was also fitted to the Princess and Coronation and was to be a feature of the still-born 2-4-2T*, but operated the pre-war hook and loop coupling similar in operation to the 'standard' Continental coupling). The high price of this locomotive ensured it's lack of popularity.

Mine is rather temperamental, a  normal feature of the Trix sequence reverser in my experience.

 

*I understand this actually appeared in the Trix Express range.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Arnold used to have a simple way of a loco uncoupling in N gauge, although it involved a sort of shuffling motion…

 

Quite a number of European prototype models have digital uncoupling; Roco have introduced a few shunters recently with the feature, although it seemingly doesn’t always work too well (but then, the standard couplings don't either). Meanwhile Bachmann announced a couple of years ago, an N gauge (Liliput) DB class 333 "Kleinlok" with digital uncoupling. But it hasn't arrived yet…

Edited November 20, 2021 by D9020 Nimbus

[2750Papyrus]

On 18/11/2021 at 23:52, Il Grifone said:

The Trix uncoupler relied on a electromagnet (hence the noise) operated with the reverser and was only fitted to the 'Scotsman' in the UK (post war - pre-war it was also fitted to the Princess and Coronation and was to be a feature of the still-born 2-4-2T*, but operated the pre-war hook and loop coupling similar in operation to the 'standard' Continental coupling). The high price of this locomotive ensured it's lack of popularity.

Mine is rather temperamental, a  normal feature of the Trix sequence reverser in my experience.

 

*I understand this actually appeared in the Trix Express range.

The German-styled 2-4-2 tank was also sold in this country with a modified version of the Peco/HD/Trix coupling fitted at each end, with reverser controlled uncoupling.  It actually worked quite well and shunting could be good fun.  However, a break in the supply due to dirty track or excessive speed resulted in the train becoming uncoupled - the same circumstances would cause a non-fitted loco to stop. 

 

I'm rather disappointed that features such as this have never been more widely available.

[railroadbill]

 

Came across this in a bits box last night, a Triang device I think. When the loco comes to an abrupt halt, the weight on the arm keeps moving and the hook is raised uncoupling the train from loco.  Simple, but  not so realistic with train movement!  (I reckon it's off an 08 shunter).

 

Looked up the 2-4-2T  (20/56) in the Matthewman book, and there's quite a lot on p154-157, including instruction leaflet and diagrams. Certainly a complicated mechanism.  It says the British market one was available from 1951 to 1954, and the German one from 1948 to 1955.  However, it was subject to mazak rot and not many survive.  Apart from that looks a good model, very advanced for its time.

 

 

[rockershovel]

Have to say, Triang knew what they were doing with the tension-lock coupler - simple, reliable and easy to arrange uncoupling using simple fixed or moving ramps 

[2750Papyrus]

1 hour ago, railroadbill said:

 

However, it was subject to mazak rot and not many survive.  Apart from that looks a good model, very advanced for its time.

 

I should still have ours somewhere, so I need to check.  Sadly, I don't think it will take to code 75 BH any more kindly than the Ruston-Hornsby shunter!

[Ruffnut Thorston]

On 21/11/2021 at 15:03, railroadbill said:

 

Came across this in a bits box last night, a Triang device I think. When the loco comes to an abrupt halt, the weight on the arm keeps moving and the hook is raised uncoupling the train from loco.  Simple, but  not so realistic with train movement!  (I reckon it's off an 08 shunter).

 

>Snipped

 

 

Yes, this was in the cab end of the newer inside frame “08” Shunter.

 

This version uses the B12 chassis block, “Jinty” size wheels, and B12 type coupling rods.

There is a hefty plastic base unit that has the body clips on it.

 

The uncoupling feature didn’t last long, I think that only the early batches in green were actually fitted.

 

Possibly too much unscheduled uncoupling when the loco stalled or jerked on insulated frog points…

[andyman7]

30 minutes ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

Yes, this was in the cab end of the newer inside frame “08” Shunter.

 

This version uses the B12 chassis block, “Jinty” size wheels, and B12 type coupling rods.

There is a hefty plastic base unit that has the body clips on it.

 

The uncoupling feature didn’t last long, I think that only the early batches in green were actually fitted.

 

Possibly too much unscheduled uncoupling when the loco stalled or jerked on insulated frog points…

It was fitted to the R156 and R354 Green versions, the R780 blue version and possibly the Task Force Action Set green version

Edited November 22, 2021 by andyman7

[railroadbill]

On 21/11/2021 at 16:29, 2750Papyrus said:

 

I should still have ours somewhere, so I need to check.  Sadly, I don't think it will take to code 75 BH any more kindly than the Ruston-Hornsby shunter!

I take it the Ruston shunter wouldn't run properly on code 75 track due to the flange depth for one thing, but would it run on code 100 track?  (The ones with "scale" wheels, not the coarse scale ones?).

 

The 2 Trix coaches that I bought that I started the thread about were running very badly over Peco code 100 points. I thought it was the flanges but on looking closely at the wheels the flanges were about the same as Fleischmann stock that ran ok. It turned out that the back to back measurement was very tight, under 14mm. By moving the wheels out as far as I could (got to 14.07 mm in the end)  the coaches then ran ok without lurching badly over the points.  So won't have to replace the wheel sets.

Edited November 28, 2021 by railroadbill
missing zero in dimension

[Il Grifone]

Unfortunately there never was a 'scale' version of the Ruston Shunter. AFAIK it used a similar drive to the AC Trix locomotives, with teeth cut into the back of the thick driving wheel flange. The result would only run on deep rail sections and meant that finer wheels are a no-go. Trix coarse wheels will run on Dublo 3 rail plain track (code 125), but come to grief on the pointwork. The fine* wheels are more or less to Dublo standards (as adopted by Triang/Hornby). It was sold together with the shunter's truck which was quite a reasonable model of its prototype (provided the coarse wheels were replaced). Unfortunately they were moulded in some sort of rubbish (acetate?) plastic and now invariably are warped.

 

*'Fine' as opposed to 'coarse'. They certainly aren't to NMRA or BRMSB standards

[2750Papyrus]

2 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

Unfortunately there never was a 'scale' version of the Ruston Shunter. AFAIK it used a similar drive to the AC Trix locomotives, with teeth cut into the back of the thick driving wheel flange. The result would only run on deep rail sections and meant that finer wheels are a no-go. Trix coarse wheels will run on Dublo 3 rail plain track (code 125), but come to grief on the pointwork. The fine* wheels are more or less to Dublo standards (as adopted by Triang/Hornby). It was sold together with the shunter's truck which was quite a reasonable model of its prototype (provided the coarse wheels were replaced). Unfortunately they were moulded in some sort of rubbish (acetate?) plastic and now invariably are warped.

 

*'Fine' as opposed to 'coarse'. They certainly aren't to NMRA or BRMSB standards

We moved from Trix track, through Wrenn, to a PECO product using fibre sleeper units on which a FB rail sat and was spiked every 4 or 5 sleepers.  I can't remember what this was called, but the sleeper4 spacing was better than code 100 or 75 Streamline. 

 

Our Brit and class 5 were re-wheeled by Trix to the finer standard, whilst the EM1 had a rubber or plastic deep tyre/flange pressed onto the finer wheel profile - I think the Western 0-6-2 tank came with this profile.  The EM1 is not happy with code 75 and I think the Ruston-Hornsby shunter would need something like code 125!

 

 

[Il Grifone]

Peco did a fibre based flexible track ( inspirationally called Pecoway) and spiked track kits (Individulay IIRC). Both disappeared with the introduction of Streamline (1963?).

 

Trix finally did away with the steamroller wheels with the introduction of the three locomotives with the convertible wheels* (56xx '6664', BR standard class V (sic) and Britannia). IIRC the last coarse wheeled Trix loco was the 'Schools' (actually Class V and now highly collectible, but really its only claim to being a Schools was that it was a 4-4-0 with a Schools name - Hornby had done a better job in gauge 0 twenty years earlier1).

 

* A plastic ring which could be removed from the back of the wheels to convert them to Dublo standards. Unfortunately they were still not 100% compatible with Dublo (ignoring the scale) due to the chassis being live to the centre rail causing short circuits when coupled to Dublo stock. It took me ages to understand why my 6664 wouldn't run properly. She now has plastic Trix couplings!

[Fat Controller]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

We moved from Trix track, through Wrenn, to a PECO product using fibre sleeper units on which a FB rail sat and was spiked every 4 or 5 sleepers.  I can't remember what this was called, but the sleeper4 spacing was better than code 100 or 75 Streamline. 

 

Our Brit and class 5 were re-wheeled by Trix to the finer standard, whilst the EM1 had a rubber or plastic deep tyre/flange pressed onto the finer wheel profile - I think the Western 0-6-2 tank came with this profile.  The EM1 is not happy with code 75 and I think the Ruston-Hornsby shunter would need something like code 125!

 

 

I had one of the Rustons; the finest rail it would run on was Super-4, which probably was Code 125.

[Il Grifone]

Super 4 like the previous Tri-ang/Rovex track is code 154* (about right for gauge 0). Hornby Dublo is code 125 for 3 rail and 110 for 2 rail. Märklin and Formo will couple happily with Dublo, so must be about the same. Märklin will be something metric, certainly not measured in thou., so probably 3mm. Trix rail is bent tin, but I'll see if I can measure some. (This relies on finding the track and the caliper at the same time....)

 

*The chairs are quite chunky and limit the flange depth to 'generous'. Again I'll see if I can measure some.

[railroadbill]

This does seem to be a problem in collecting Trix now, in that the wheel/track standards changed considerably over the years.  Pre war Hornby Dublo stock would run with 1960s manufactured stock with no problem so anything you bought then or buy now will run together  because the wheel profile/track didn't change but  Trix  were stuck with a very coarse scale track for too long really.  From what has been posted above the 66xx Britannia and Std 5 were a move ahead but making them  available with different types of wheel must have been confusing. 

 

The Trix coaches I bought are ok on code 100 but only after I widened the back to back setting.

 

I think, but not sure, that the final Liliput pacifics would be ok on Peco code 100 track but haven't seen one running.